1. By fax dated November 17, 1997 the London
firm of solicitors, Slaughter and May, presented a petition to the Inter-American
Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter "the Commission") against the Republic
of Trinidad and Tobago (hereinafter "the State" or "Trinidad") on
behalf of Ms. Indravani (Pamela) Ramjattan, presently under sentence of death at the State
Prison in Port of Spain. The petition stated that the High Court of Trinidad at the Port
of Spain Assizes tried the Applicant for the murder of Mr. Alexander Jordan, her
common-law husband, on February 13, 1991, along with two co-defendants, Mr. Denny Baptiste
and Mr. Haniff Hilaire. The Applicant was convicted on May 29, 1995 and sentenced to the
mandatory death penalty for murder.

Precautionary Measures

2. Simultaneous with the presentation of the complaint, the
Applicant requested the Commission to issue precautionary measures, pursuant to article
29(2) of its Regulations, and to seek a stay of execution pending the determination of the
complaint by the Commission. On November 21, 1997, the Commission requested the State to
stay Ms. Ramjattan's execution "until such time as the Commission has had the
opportunity to consider this case and issue its decision." The Commission requested
"an immediate consent to the above request."

3. The State of Trinidad and Tobago did not respond to this
request for precautionary measures. The Commission regrets that the State party was not
prepared to grant the precautionary measures requested under article 29(2) of its
Regulations, and to guarantee that the Petitioner would not be executed while his case was
under examination. In fact, however, as of September 28, 1998, the petitioner has not been
executed. The Commission observes that it is not for the State party, but for the
Commission, to decide whether or not a complaint is admissible. The Commission requests
the State to cooperate fully with the Commission's examination of communications in the
future.

II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION

4. Ms. Ramjattan's appeal to the Court of
Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago was dismissed on November 7, 1996. The Court
of Appeal subsequently issued a written judgment on March 10, 1997. On October 10, 1997,
the Applicant filed a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal to the Privy Council which was
dismissed on November 7, 1997.

5. The complaint alleges that the following articles of the
American Convention were violated by the State of Trinidad and Tobago to the detriment of
the Applicant: articles 4, 5, 8 and 11 of the American Convention on Human Rights
(hereinafter "the Convention" or "the American Convention"). On
January 23, 1998, an Additional Submission was filed on behalf of Ms. Indravani (Pamela)
Ramjattan by the petitioners alleging violations of the Inter-American Convention on the
Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against Women, the "Convention of
Belem do Para." Specifically, as regards the first petition, it is alleged that the
Applicant is a woman who has suffered an appalling history of physical and mental abuse at
the hands of her common-law husband, Alexander Jordan, the deceased. Jordan, according to
the petition first came into the life of the Applicant when she was 14 years old, he 33.
When the Applicant was 17 years old she was sent against her will to live with Jordan who
had bought the property next door to her parents'. They had six children by February 12,
1991, the date of the alleged crime. Jordan allegedly subjected the Applicant to a
"reign of terror," and her lover, Denny Baptiste, with whom she was 5-6 months
pregnant, allegedly inflicted the fatal blows and the Applicant, according to the petition
"was not even in the same room when the fatal blows were struck." The State
delayed four years and three months in bringing the case to trial and by the time the
petition was filed with the Commission the Applicant had been on death row for two years
and six months. With the exception of her eldest daughter who gave evidence at her trial
in May 1995, she has not seen her children (who were between 2 and 11 years of age at the
time of her arrest) throughout her time in prison. In addition, the petitioners allege
serious violations as regards the right to legal representation in a capital case.
According to the petition, the first time she met her defense attorney was at the
Preliminary Hearing; she received no prior notice of the charges and had no opportunity to
prepare her defense; at the trial she was represented by a different attorney who visited
her twice prior to the trial, each time for only twenty minutes; during the actual trial
she was only able to see her attorney for 3-5 minutes on some days of the trial, not every
day; no importance was attached, by her attorney, to the physical and mental abuse she had
suffered and its impact on her conduct in relation to the alleged crime; no witnesses were
called in her defense.

6. The State of Trinidad and Tobago responded to the petition by
Note POL:6/16/2 Vol. 7 of April 16, 1998. In this Note, the State informed the Commission
that the "Instructions Relating to Applications from Persons under Sentence of Death
issued by the Government of Trinidad and Tobago on 13 October 1997, are deemed to apply to
the communication of Indravani Ramjattan. Case No 11.837." In addition, the State
pointed out that:

... in order for any recommendation by the Commission to
be considered by the Minister of National Security when advising his Excellency the
President of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, the Government of Trinidad and
Tobago respectfully requests the Commission to submit its determination in respect of the
communication within a period of six months from the date of the despatch of the response
by the State party.

In other words, the State requested that the Commission issue a
decision on the merits in this case within a period of six months from April 16, 1998 or
by October 16, 1998. According to the State, the decision of the Commission would be
considered by the Minister of National Security when advising the President as to whether
he should exercise the prerogative of mercy. Unlike other systems where the prerogative of
mercy is considered part of the domestic process, in Trinidad and Tobago the international
instance is used to inform the domestic process.

7. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, at the request
of the Government, held a meeting on February 20, 1998, during its 98th period of
sessions, with Mr. Ralph Maraj, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Trinidad
and Tobago and Mr. Ramesh L. Maharaj, the Attorney General of that State. In his
statement, the Attorney General argued that the "Commission has no power to challenge
the implementation of a sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in
Trinidad and Tobago." The argument of the State is as follows:

Under the Convention, the Commission has the power to
make recommendations to the State Party, but in so far as those recommendations relate to
a sentence imposed by the courts of the State Party it would be acting ultra vires
if it attempted to alter by its recommendations the domestic law of the State in respect
of sentencing. The Commission therefore has no power to challenge the implementation of a
sentence of death imposed by a court of competent jurisdiction in Trinidad and Tobago.

The Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago mandates all arms of the State,
including the Judicial arm, to uphold the law of Trinidad and Tobago. The State of
Trinidad and Tobago therefore has a mandatory obligation to ensure that its Constitution
and laws are not undermined, subverted or frustrated in their operation. It was for this
reason that the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, by its reservation entered when
accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter- American Court of Human Rights, stated
that the Court can only have jurisdiction to the extent that it is consistent with the
Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago. The Commission therefore does not have jurisdiction
either by its acts or omissions to prevent in any way a sentence, authorized by the
Constitution and laws of Trinidad and Tobago and pronounced by a court of competent
jurisdiction, from being carried into effect. It is therefore open for the Government
of Trinidad and Tobago, whilst a petition is pending before the Commission, to carry out
the sentence of death once the time stipulated in accordance with the Constitution and
laws of Trinidad and Tobago has expired. The Commission may recommend the award of
compensation to a victim. It may recommend that the State Party correct those matters
which gave rise to a substantive breach so that others do not suffer the same violation in
future. However it is submitted that the Commission, either directly or by its
recommendation, has no power to alter the lawful sentence imposed by a court of a State
Party. (Emphasis added).

III. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

A. The Commission's Competence

8. Trinidad and Tobago is a State party to the American
Convention, having ratified the treaty on May 28, 1991. Trinidad and Tobago ratified the
"Convention of Belem do Para" on June 4, 1996. The petition alleges violations
of human rights set forth in the American Convention which the Commission is competent to
review.

B. Procedural Admissibility of the Petition

1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

9. The Government of Trinidad and Tobago stated in its response
dated April 16, 1998 that:

In the interests of expediency (...) notwithstanding the
failure of the Applicant to first seek redress for his grievances by way of a
Constitutional Motion before the domestic courts of Trinidad and Tobago, except as herein
expressly provided, the State party raises no challenge to the admissibility of this
communication based on the exhaustion of domestic remedies rule (...).

10. The petitioners, in the observations to the response of the
State Party, dated July 22, 1998, noted that "the State Party has raised no challenge
to the admissibility of this communication based on the `exhaustion of domestic remedies
rule.' The State Party has intimated, however, that the Applicant should first have sought
redress by way of a Constitutional Motion before the domestic courts of Trinidad and
Tobago. It is submitted that legal aid to a Death Row inmate in Trinidad and Tobago to
bring a Constitutional Motion is not available. The remedy of a Constitutional Motion is
therefore effectively denied under domestic law for the purposes of Article 46(1)(a) of
the Convention or Article 37(2)(b) of the Regulations. Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention
and Article 37(2)(b) of the Regulations provide that the requirement for domestic remedies
to have been exhausted is not applicable where:

`the party alleging the violation of his rights has been
denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting
them.'

It is submitted that the Applicant has effectively been denied
access to the remedy of a Constitutional Motion, or has been prevented from exhausting
this remedy, by virtue of the fact that legal aid is in effect not available for a
Constitutional Motion."

11. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Commission and Court
supports the view that a remedy needs to be effective and capable of producing the result
for which it was designed, and that it is not sufficient for the remedy simply to be
available. (Velásquez Rodríguez, Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June
26, 1987, para. 88). For an indigent prisoner, who has exhausted all judicial appeals
including recourse to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, to be
expected to file a constitutional motion, the burden of proof lies with the State to show
that this remedy is effective and capable of producing the result which would make it
worthwhile for the prisoner to pursue. In the opinion of the Commission, the State did not
meet the burden of proof in this case and consequently the Commission finds this case
admissible.

2. Timely filing

12. The petition was presented within six months of the final
ruling of the appeal on conviction and sentence pursuant to Article 46(1)(b) of the
Convention. Ms. Ramjattan's appeal against conviction and sentence was dismissed by the
Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago on March 10, 1997. Her application for leave to
appeal her conviction was dismissed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in
London, on November 7, 1997. The petition was filed before the Commission on November 17,
1997.

3. No duplication of other international
procedures

13. The petition satisfies the requirements of article 46(1)(c)
in that it is not pending settlement in another international proceeding, nor does it
duplicate a petition already examined and settled by the Commission or by another
international governmental organization of which the State concerned is a member.

IV. CONCLUSION

14. The Commission finds that the petition is admissible having
satisfied the requirements of article 46 of the American Convention.

15. Taking the foregoing considerations into account,

THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS,

DECIDES:

1. To declare the present case admissible.

2. To place itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to
seeking a friendly settlement of the matter based on the respect for human rights, as
recognized in the American Convention.

3. To make public this report and to publish it in its Annual
Report to the OAS General Assembly.

Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in the
city of Washington, D.C. on the 3rd day of the month of November 1998. (Signed): Carlos
Ayala Corao, Chairman; Robert K. Goldman, Vice Chairman; Jean Joseph Exume, Second Vice
Chairman; Commissioners Alvaro Tirado Mejía, and Claudio Grossman.